The article explains Fanti’s methods with easy-to-understand terminology. For instance, here is a short explanation of how Fanti identified shroud fibers from other fibers on a vacuum filter.
It was on fibers from “filter H” that Fanti did most of his work. “I discovered a relatively simple technique to detect which linen fibers were from the shroud,” he said, “based on cross-polarized light used in a petrographic microscope. The shroud fibers show a coloration like a coral snake, probably because in the original preparation of the fibers they were beaten with rods.” More recent fibers, Fanti said, were prepared differently and therefore appear differently under a microscope.
The article addresses doubts about Fanti’s findings, as well. Then, as though there was nothing more to say about the Padua professor’s wrok, Parkers gives over several column inches to Joe Nickell’s general skepticism and a rebuttal by Barrie Schwortz.
While he rejects the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, Nickell insists that a shroud might be found that he could accept did come from the tomb of Jesus Christ, but its history from the grave to the present day would have to be completely documented. “And it could not have an image on it,” he added. “That implies a miracle, and as such takes it out of the realm of science.”
Or not. Is Nickell stuck in the 1990s?
Take the time to read Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age